Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Negative Equality – Supreme Court reiterates that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality but only a positive aspect – Relief granted to a few individuals inadvertently or by mistake does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief – The principle of parity cannot be relied upon to perpetuate illegality or irregularity [Paras 24-25].

Service Law – Recruitment and Appointment – Appointment of ITI Helpers in TANGEDCO based on compromise terms – Supreme Court held that the compromise order was not based on merits and could not be treated as a binding precedent – Reiterated that appointments should be made based on legal provisions and not on concessions or compromises – Candidates who approached the court belatedly and sought parity based on the compromise order were not entitled to relief [Paras 20-21].

Judicial Precedent – Compromise Orders – The compromise order directed by the Division Bench of the High Court was binding only on the parties and did not have precedential value – Public employer's concession in a compromise cannot be the basis for extending similar benefits to others not party to the compromise [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Appeals by aggrieved candidates dismissed – Appeals by TANGEDCO allowed – Compromise order could not be treated as a precedent to grant relief to other candidates – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Default Bail – Right to Default Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC arises only if the charge-sheet has not been filed before the expiry of the statutory period – Supreme Court held that the filing of the charge-sheet within the stipulated period is sufficient compliance with Section 167(2) CrPC, and taking of cognizance is not material for this purpose – The High Court's decision to grant default bail based on non-taking of cognizance before the expiry of the statutory period was incorrect [Paras 9-10, 15].

Criminal Procedure Code – Indefeasible Right – The accused’s right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC ceases once the charge-sheet is filed within the statutory period – The custody of the accused continues with the Magistrate until cognizance is taken by the relevant court [Para 8].

Judicial Interpretation – Cognizance and Filing of Charge-Sheet – Clarified that the two stages (filing of charge-sheet and taking of cognizance) are distinct – Emphasized the continuity of custody from the Magistrate to the trial court upon filing of the charge-sheet [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order granting default bail set aside – The filing of the charge-sheet within the statutory period complied with the provisions of Section 167(2) CrPC, and the respondents were not entitled to default bail on the ground of non-taking of cognizance.

Banking Law – Liability for Fraud – The Post Office, like a bank, can be held liable for fraud or wrongs committed by its employees – Such acts of fraud by employees during their course of employment are binding on the bank/post office at the instance of the person damnified by the fraud – Acts of bank/post office employees being within their course of employment give a right to the appellants to legally proceed against the post office for injury caused [Paras 37-38].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Payment in Due Course – KVPs being bearer instruments require that payment must be made in 'due course' as defined under Section 10 of the NI Act – Payment to an agent without proper verification and identity proof does not satisfy 'payment in due course' – The Post Office's failure to follow procedural rules and instructions issued for the encashment of KVPs amounts to negligence, thus not constituting 'payment in due course' under Section 82(c) of the NI Act [Paras 16-17, 32-33].

Negligence – Contributory Negligence – The court found that the appellants were not guilty of contributory negligence – They acted under the belief that the Post Office would safeguard their interests and follow proper procedures – The Post Office's failure to adhere to established rules and procedures was the primary cause of the loss [Paras 34-35].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The respondents held jointly and severally liable to pay the maturity value of the KVPs as on the date of presentation for encashment, along with 7% simple interest per annum from the date of encashment until payment – Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000 awarded to the appellants – Payment to be made within eight weeks, failing which additional simple interest of 7% per annum will accrue on the compensation amount [Para 41].

Service Law – Selection Grade – Clean Record Requirement – The respondent, who was compulsorily retired and faced 19 charge-sheets during his service, sought Selection Grade benefits – Supreme Court held that employees are entitled to Selection Grade only if their service record is satisfactory, which implies an unblemished record – The respondent's multiple disciplinary penalties indicated that his record was not satisfactory, disqualifying him from Selection Grade benefits [Paras 10-11].

Limitation – Suit for Benefits – The respondent filed the suit seven years after compulsory retirement – Supreme Court found the suit barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year period – The representation for Selection Grade benefits rejected in 2010 did not extend the limitation period as the cause of action arose at the time of retirement [Paras 7-9].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Reasonable Classification – The Court upheld the classification that only employees with an untainted record are eligible for Selection Grade benefits, finding it reasonable and within the ambit of Article 14 – This classification ensures that benefits are awarded based on merit and clean service records [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Respondent's suit dismissed as barred by limitation and lacking merit – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 12-14].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – The appellants were convicted for the murder of two individuals, caused by multiple bullet injuries – Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act – High Court’s judgment modified the trial court's conviction by acquitting the appellants under Section 307 IPC due to the lack of evidence on the charge of attempt to murder [Paras 1-8].

Evidence Act – Credibility and Assessment – The Court emphasized the importance of evaluating the credibility of related and interested witnesses – Held that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses (PWs-1 & 2) were consistent and reliable despite being related to the deceased – The fact that PW-3 turned hostile did not affect the overall credibility of the prosecution’s case, as his initial testimony supported the prosecution [Paras 9-21, 33-34].

Hostile Witness – Legal Interpretation – Supreme Court clarified that the testimony of a hostile witness is not to be entirely discarded – The portions of the testimony that are reliable and consistent with the prosecution’s case can be accepted and relied upon [Paras 21-23].

Non-examination of Witness – Not Fatal – The non-examination of an injured witness (Om Prakash) was explained by the prosecution, and the Court held that this did not vitiate the case – The evidence provided by the other witnesses and forensic reports were sufficient to uphold the conviction [Paras 24-25, 34-35].

Judicial Integrity – Handling of Witnesses – The Court expressed concern over the practice of delaying cross-examination, which allows time for witnesses to be influenced – Directed trial courts to complete the examination of private witnesses on the same day as far as possible and prioritize the examination of private witnesses before official witnesses [Paras 39-40].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act upheld – High Court’s judgment acquitting the appellants under Section 307 IPC affirmed – Directions issued for better handling of witness examinations in trial courts [Paras 38-40].

Labour Law – Section 33(C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act – Jurisdiction of Labour Court – Supreme Court held that the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) cannot adjudicate disputes regarding entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen – The Labour Court's jurisdiction is limited to interpreting the award or settlement on which the claim is based, akin to the jurisdiction of an executing court – In cases where there is no prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim, proceedings for computation of arrears or difference of wages are not maintainable under Section 33(C)(2) [Paras 6-7].

Employer-Employee Relationship – Serious Dispute – In cases where there is a serious dispute regarding the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the Labour Court must not proceed under Section 33(C)(2) and should direct the claimant to seek appropriate adjudication of their rights through reference under the Industrial Disputes Act [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment and Labour Court’s order set aside – Respondent No. 2 directed to pursue alternative remedies available under the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of their rights as an employee – No costs [Paras 8].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Protocols for Funeral Rites – Supreme Court upheld a mutually agreed protocol and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) between the Parsi Panchayat Board and the Union Government – The SOP ensures the observance of Parsi Zoroastrian funeral rites while adhering to Covid-19 safety guidelines – This decision resolves the dispute between the need for religious observance and public health considerations [Paras 3-9].

Dialogic Judicial Review – Promoting Harmony – The Court highlighted the role of dialogic judicial review in resolving disputes amicably and promoting harmony between conflicting interests – The agreed protocol reflects an effective solution balancing religious rights with public health requirements [Paras 5, 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Agreed protocol and SOP accepted – Writ petition governed by the agreed statement – Appeal disposed of in these terms – Pending applications, if any, disposed of [Paras 10-12].

Land Acquisition – Compensation for Injurious Affection and Severance – Supreme Court examined the legality of the award concerning the acquisition of a trolley line and related infrastructure – Held that the High Court erroneously denied compensation for rails and sleepers in the unacquired portion of land, affirming the Reference Court’s award under this head – Clarified that severance and injurious affection claims should be assessed based on the impact on the entire property, not just the acquired part [Paras 16, 45-47, 56-57].

Land Acquisition Act – Section 23 – Determining Compensation – Applied principles under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, including market value, severance damage, and injurious affection – Emphasized the distinct evaluation of injurious affection to property (rails and sleepers) versus earnings (increased transportation costs) – Found sufficient evidence supporting the obsolescence of the trolley line and related infrastructure due to acquisition [Paras 30-36, 78-79].

Severance and Injurious Affection – Distinct Heads of Claim – Differentiated between severance (damage due to dividing land) and injurious affection (impact on remaining property and earnings) – Supreme Court upheld the Reference Court’s compensation for severance and injurious affection while rejecting claims not sufficiently evidenced or overlapping, such as increased transportation costs [Paras 42-46, 65-67, 76].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside regarding compensation for rails and sleepers in the unacquired portion – Reference Court’s award of Rs. 3,121,860/- towards compensation for rails and sleepers restored – Other claims, including increased transportation costs and rolling stock compensation, dismissed as unsupported by evidence or due to no actionable loss [Paras 79-80].

Civil Procedure – Modification of Consent Decree – Court's Inherent Powers – Supreme Court held that a consent decree can be modified under Sections 152 and 153 read with Section 151 of the CPC if it is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or misunderstanding – The application for modification should be treated under the proviso to Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC – No allegation of fraud or misrepresentation was found, and the appeal was dismissed [Paras 1-3, 5-6, 13-14].

Judicial Review – Consent Decree – Estoppel and Mistake – The Court emphasized that a consent decree is intended to conclude litigation and creates estoppel by judgment – A decree can be modified if there is a patent or obvious mistake, but not for minor misunderstandings or ambiguities that do not affect the core agreement – The thorough correspondence between the parties' advocates indicated no ambiguity or lack of clarity [Paras 11-13].

Settlement Agreement – Trademark Dispute – Detailed Examination – The case involved a dispute over the use of the trademark "FX-991ES PLUS" – The Court scrutinized the communications and found that the settlement agreement was detailed and deliberate, without any apparent mistake that could justify modification [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – No case for modification of the consent decree established – No costs [Paras 14].